3, reckoned from January 1, 2010 until full
payment.
FIRST DIVISION
January 27, 2016
G.R. No. 213863
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
EDGARDO L. SANTOS, represented by his
assignee, ROMEO L. SANTOS, Respondent.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 214021
EDGARDO L. SANTOS, represented by his
assignee, ROMEO L. SANTOS, Petitioner,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court: are consolidated petitions for
review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 1
dated December 4, 2013 and the
Resolution3 dated August 11, 2014 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 110779 and
121813, which affirmed the Orders dated July 9,
20094 and August 24, 20095 of the Regional Trial
Court of Naga City (RTC), Branch 23, acting as a
Special Agrarian Court (SAC), in Civil Case Nos.
2001-0229 and 2001-0315, and the Order6 dated
October 10, 2011 in Civil Case No. 2001-0315,
directing the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
to: (a) release to Edgardo L. Santos (Santos) the
initial valuation of Lands 1 and 2 upon submission
of two (2) valid identification (ID) cards, two (2)
latest ID pictures, current community tax
certificate (CTC), and execution of a Deed of
Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking in favor
of the LBP; and (b) pay I twelve percent (12%)
interest on the unpaid just compensation for Land
The Facts
Santos owned three (3) parcels of agricultural
land devoted to corn situated in the Municipality
of Sagnay, Camarines Sur, covered by Tax
Declaration (TD) Nos. 197-018-0579 (Land 1)
and 97-010-076 (Land 2),7 and Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 57178 (Land 3;
collectively, subject lands).
In 1984, the subject lands were placed under the
government's Operation Land Transfer
Program9 pursuant to Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 27,10 and distributed to the farmer-
beneficiaries who were issued the corresponding
Emancipation Patents.11 The Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) fixed the just
compensation at P164,532.50 for Land 1,
P39,841.93 for Land 2,12 and P66,2l4.03 for Land
3,13 using the formula provided under Executive
Order No. (EO) 228,14 Series of 1987.
On May 25, 2000, the LBP received the claim
folder covering the subject lands15 and allowed
Santos to collect the initial valuation for Land 3. It
withheld the release of the valuation for Lands 1
and 2 until the submission of the certificates of
title thereto,16 since it was discovered that they
were covered by Decree Nos. N-8237817 and
622575,18 respectively.
Thus, on August 30, 2000 and December 17,
2003, respectively, Santos was issued Agrarian
Reform (AR) Bond No. 0079665 in the amount of
P11,674.59 representing the initial valuation of
Land 3 and AR Bond No. 0079666 in the amount
of P30,428.83 representing the six percent (6%)
increment pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228, and
paid cash in the total amount of P4,678.16.19
Finding the valuation unreasonable, Santos filed
three (3) petitions20 for summary administrative
proceedings for the determination of just
compensation of the subject lands before the
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) of
Camarines Sur, docketed as DARAB Case Nos.
V-RC-051-CS-00, V-RC-074-CS-00, and V-RC-
075-CS-00.
On March 27, 2001, the PARAD rendered
separate decisions21 fixing the just compensation
as follows: (a) P510,034.2922 for Land
1; (b) P2,532,060.3123 for' Land 2;
and (c) Pl,147,466.7324 for Land 3, using the
formula,25LV = AGP x 2.5 x GSP. However, in
arriving at such values, I the PARAD used the
recent government support price (GSP) for com
of P300.00/cavan (P6.00/kilo) as certified by the
National Food Authority Provincial Manager of
Camarines Sur, instead of the P31.00/cavan
provided under Section 226 of EO 228. Hence, it
no longer applied the six percent (6%) annual
incremental interest granted under DAR
Administrative Order (DAR AO) No. 13,27Series
of 1994. In a letter28 dated September 5, 2001,
Santos unconditionally 'accepted and called for
the immediate payment of the valuations for
Lands 2 and 3.
Dissatisfied with the PARAD's valuation, the LBP
instituted two (2) separate complaints29 (or the
determination of just compensation before the
RTC, averring that the computations were
erroneous when they disregarded the formula
provided under EO 228. The cases were raffled
to its Branch 21, and docketed as Civil Case
Nos. 2001-029930 for Land 1, and 2001-
031531 for Lands 2 and 3.
Santos moved to dismiss32 the complaints on the
ground that the LBP has no legal personality to
institute such action, and that the complaints
were barred by the finality of the PARAD's
Decision.
In a consolidated Order33 dated November 9,
2001, the RTC dismissed both complaints.
Meanwhile, Branch 23 of the same RTC was
designated as the new SAC that gave due course
to the LBP's notices of appeal.34 The appeals,
however, were set aside by the CA's Fifth and
Third Divisions, which remanded the cases to the
RTC for appropriate proceedings, and
computation of just compensation, respectively.35
On May 5, 2009, Santos filed before the RTC a
motion to release the initial valuation for Lands 1
and 2 as fixed by the DAR, which was granted on
June 2, 2009, conditioned on the submission of
several documentary requirements.36 Santos
moved for reconsideration, pointing out that what
was sought was the initial valuation only and not
its full payment, but nonetheless,
committed (a) to submit two (2) valid ID cards,
two (2) latest ID pictures and his CTC for the
current year, and (b) to execute a Deed of
Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking in favor
of the LBP.37
In opposition, the LBP insisted that Santos
must: (a) first establish his ownership over the
said properties, it appearing that a Decree
covering Land 1 was issued in favor of a certain
Mariano Garchitorena, hence, the owner's
duplicate of the said title must be surrendered to
the Registry of Deeds for cancellation; and
(b) submit a real estate tax clearance to prove
that there were no encumbrances burdening the
property and that the taxes thereon had been fully
paid until 1972.38
In an Order39 dated July 9, 2009, the RTC ruled
in favor of Santos, holding that since Land 1 was
processed as an untitled property and the LBP
had admitted in its petitions for just compensation
that Santos was the owner of the untitled lands
covered by PD 27 as reflected in the tax
declarations, the LBP cannot maintain an
inconsistent position by requiring Santos to prove
his ownership thereto. It added that the
submission of the required documents may still
be directed upon full payment of the just
compensation.
The LBP's motion for reconsideration40 was
denied in an Order41 dated August 24, 2009.
The LBP elevated the matter to the CA via a
petition for certiorari and Prohibition42 with prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order (TRO),
docketed as CA-GR. SP No. 110779, asserting
that the RTC abused its discretion considering
that: (a) it was not at liberty to disregard43 DAR
AO No. 2, Series of 2005,44 which prescribes the
requirements for the release of the initial
valuation to a landowner; and (b) no 1 further
proceedings were necessary to arrive at the just
compensation for Lands 2 and 3 in view of the
final and executory decision in CA-G.R. CV No.
75010 that directed the remand of the case to the
RTC for computation purposes only, hence, res
judicata had set in.45
The LBP's application for the issuance of a TRO
having been denied,46 it was constrained to
deposit the initial valuation for Lands 1 and 2 as
directed by the RTC47 after Santos'
assignee,48 Romeo Santos, signed the required
Deed of Assignment, Warranties and
Undertaking49 in favor of the LBP.
In an Order50 dated March 17, 2010, the RTC
directed the LBP to submit a revaluation for Lands
1, 2, and 3 in accordance with the factors set forth
under Republic Act (RA) No. 6657,51 otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988," as implemented by DAR AO No. 1,
Series of 2010.52
In compliance therewith, the LBP recomputed the
valuation of the subject lands as follows:
P514,936.4453 for Land 1, P2,506,873.4354 for
Land 2, and Pl,155,223.4155 for Land 3, which
Santos accepted. Considering, however, the
pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 110779 involving
Lands 1 and 2, Santos moved for a separate
judgment relative to Land 3.56
The RTC Ruling
On June 22, 2011, the RTC issued a
Judgment57 in Civil Case No. 2001-0315,
adopting and approving the LBP's uncontested
revaluation for Land 3 in the amount of
Pl,155,223.41, and ordering its payment to
Santos in accordance with Section 18 of RA
6657, minus the initial valuation that had already
been paid to him.
Santos moved for reconsideration, contending
that the RTC failed to order the payment of twelve
percent (12%) interest reckoned from the time the
property was taken 1from him by the government
in 1972 and distributed to the farmer beneficiaries
until full payment of the just compensation. 58 In
an Order59 dated August 31, 2011, the RTC
granted the motion and awarded twelve percent
(12%) interest computed from June 26, 2000
when the LBP approved the payment of the initial
valuation for the property up to the date the
decision was rendered, or a total amount of
Pl,437,669.75.
Both parties moved for reconsideration.60
In an Order61 dated October 10, 2011, the RTC
modified its August 31, 2011 Order, holding that
the twelve percent (12%) interest should be
reckoned from January 1, 2010 until full payment
since the revaluation of Land 3 already included
the required six percent (6%) annual incremental
interest under DAR AO No. 13, Series of
1994,62 DAR AO No. 2, Series of 2004,63 and
DAR AO No. 6, Series of 2008,64 from the time of
taking until December 31, 2009.
Dissatisfied, Santos filed a petition for
review65 before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP
No. 121813, which was subsequently
consolidated with the LBP's petition in CA-GR.
SP No. 110779.66
On October 12, 2011, the LBP fully paid Santos
the amount of Pl,155,223.41 representing the just
compensation for Land 3.67
The CA Ruling
In a Decision68 dated December 4, 2013, the CA
dismissed the petitions, and affirmed the RTC's
Orders dated July 9, 2009 and August 24, 2009
subject of CA-G.R. SP No. 110779, and the Order
dated October 11, 2011 subject of CA-G.R. SP
No. 121813.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 110779, the CA ruled that no
grave abuse of discretion was committed by the
RTC when it proceeded with the determination of
just compensation, thereby rejecting the LBP's
contention that the RTC was barred by res
judicata from conducting further proceedings to
determine just compensation with the finality69 of
its earlier decisions in CA-G.R. CV Nos.
7491970 and 75010.71 It pointed out that the said
decisions merely resolved the LBP's personality
to institute an action for determination of just
compensation, and reinstated the LBP's
complaints for just compensation which were well
within the RTC's original and exclusive
jurisdiction under RA 6657. It likewise sustained
the release of the initial valuation for Lands 1 and
2 conditioned on the submission of only the
documents mentioned in the RTC's July 9, 2009
Order, finding that the failure to produce the titles
thereto were beyond Santos' control and that his
claim of ownership had been sufficiently
established. It added that the RTC's June 22,
2011 Judgment conditioned the release of the
final just compensation upon compliance with the
requirements of the law.72
In CA-G.R. SP No. 121813, the CA upheld the
RTC's ruling that Santos was entitled to a twelve
percent (12%) interest reckoned from January 1,
2010 until its full payment since the revaluation by
the LBP of Land 3 already included six percent
(6%) annual incremental interest until December
31, 2009.73
Aggrieved, both parties moved for
reconsideration which were denied in a
Resolution74 dated August 11, 2014; hence,
these consolidated petitions.
The Issues Before the Court
In its petition in G.R. No. 213863, the LBP
contended that the CA committed reversible error
in: (a) not finding the RTC to have acted with
grave abuse of discretion in allowing the release
of the initial valuation of Lands 1 and 2 without
submitting the documents listed under DAR AO
No. 2, Series of 2005; (b) ignoring the final
decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 75010 that effectively
barred the RTC from further proceeding with the
determination of just compensation relative to
Lands 2 and 3; and (c) holding it liable for twelve
percent (12%) interest on the unpaid just
compensation for Land 3.
On the other hand, Santos raised in his petition
in G.R. No. 214021 the sole question of whether
or not the CA erred in reckoning the award of
twelve percent (12%) interest from January 1,
2010 until full payment of the just compensation.
The Court's Ruling
The Court has repeatedly held that the seizure
of landholdings or properties covered by PD
27 did not take place on October 21, 1972, but
upon the payment of just
compensation.75 Thus, if the agrarian reform
process is still incomplete, as in this case where
the just compensation due the landowner has yet
to be settled, just compensation should be
determined and the process concluded under RA
6657.76
As summarized in LBP v. Sps. Banal,77 the
procedure for the determination of just
compensation under RA 6657 commences with
the LBP determining the initial valuation of the
lands under the land reform program.78 Using the
LBP's valuation, the DAR makes an offer to the
landowner.79 In case the landowner rejects the
offer, the DAR adjudicator conducts a summary
administrative proceeding to determine the
compensation for the land by requiring the
landowner, the LBP, and other interested parties
to submit evidence on the just compensation of
the land. A party who disagrees with the decision
of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to
the RTC, designated as a Special Agrarian Court
for final determination of just compensation.80
Note that in case of rejection, RA 6657 entitles
the landowner to withdraw the initial valuation of
the landholding pending the determination of just
compensation.81 In this case, however, the LBP,
citing DAR AO No. 2, Series of 2005, posited that
the release of such amount is conditioned on the
submission of all the documentary requirements
listed therein, and that the RTC's failure to require
Santos to comply therewith constitutes grave
abuse of discretion.82
The Court is not persuaded.
Grave abuse of discretion connotes an arbitrary
or despotic exercise of power due to passion,
prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical,
arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that
amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a
positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law. For an act to be struck
down as having been done with grave abuse of
discretion, the abuse must be patent and gross.83
Contrary to the LBP's assertion in G.R. No.
213863, nowhere from the said administrative
guideline can it be inferred that the submission of
the complete documents is a pre-condition for the
release of the initial valuation to a landowner. To
hold otherwise would effectively protract payment
of the amount which RA 6657 guarantees to be
immediately due the landowner even pending the
determination of just compensation. As
elucidated in LBP v. CA:84
As an exercise of police power, the expropriation
of private property under the CARP puts the
landowner, and not the government, in a situation
where the odds are already stacked against his
favor. He has no recourse but to allow it. His only
consolation is that he can negotiate for the
amount of compensation to be paid for the
expropriated property. As expected, the
landowner will exercise this right to the hilt, but
subject however to the limitation that he can only
be entitled to a "just compensation." Clearly
therefore, by rejecting and disputing the valuation
of the DAR, the landowner is merely exercising
his right to seek just compensation. If we are to
x x x [withhold] the release of the offered
compensation despite depriving the
landowner of the possession and use of his
property, we are in effect penalizing the latter
for simply exercising a right afforded to him
by law.
Obviously, this would render the right to seek a
fair and just compensation illusory as it would
discourage owners of private lands from
contesting the offered valuation of the DAR even
if they find it unacceptable, for fear of the
hardships that could result from long delays in the
resolution of their cases. This is contrary to the
rules of fair play because the concept of just
compensation embraces not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the
owners of the land, but also the payment of the
land within a reasonable time from its taking.
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot
be considered "just" for the property owner is
made to suffer the consequence of being
immediately deprived of his land while being
made to wait for a decade or more before actually
receiving the amount necessary to cope with his
loss.85 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the leniency accorded by the RTC cannot
be construed as a capricious exercise of power
as it merely expedited the procedure for payment
which is inherently fairer under the circumstances
considering that: (a) Santos has been "deprived
of his right to enjoy his properties as early as
1983, and has not yet received any compensation
therefor since then;"86 (b) the existence of the
certificates of title over Lands 1 and 2 which the
LBP insists to be submitted had not been
sufficiently established;87 (c) the LBP had
judicially admitted, that Santos is the owner of
Lands 1 and 2 which were identified as covered
by tax declarations;88 and (d) compliance with the
required documents may still be directed before
the full payment of the correct just
compensation89 which, up to this time, has not yet
been finally determined. Moreover, as aptly
pointed out by the CA, Santos' failure to produce
the titles to Lands 1 and 2 was not motivated by
any obstinate refusal to abide by the
requirements but due to impediments beyond his
control.90
Perforce, no reversible error or grave abuse of
discretion can be imputed on the CA in sustaining
the RTC Orders dated July 9, 2009 and August
24, 2009 which allowed the withdrawal of the
initial valuation upon Santos' (a) submission of
two (2) valid ID cards, two (2) latest ID pictures, I
and his current CTC, and (b) execution of a Deed
of Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking in
favor of the LBP.
Neither can the Court subscribe to the LBP's
contention that the RTC was barred by res
judicata from conducting further proceedings to
determine just compensation for Lands 2 and 3
since the final and executory Decision in CA-G.R.
CV No. 75010 merely called for a remand of the
case for computation purposes only.1âwphi1
Res judicata means a matter adjudged, a thing
judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter
settled by judgment.1âwphi1 The doctrine of res
judicata provides that a final judgment, on the
merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the
parties and their privies and constitutes an
absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the
same claim, demand, or cause of action. The
elements of res judicata are (a) identity of parties
or at least such as representing the same interest
in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted
and relief prayed for, the relief being founded
on the same facts; and (c) the identity in the two
(2) particulars is such that any judgment which
may be rendered in the other action will,
regardless of which party is successful, amount
to res judicata in the action under consideration.91
As correctly observed by the CA, the decision in
CA-G.R. CV No. 75010 did not preclude the RTC
from proceeding with the determination of just
compensation of the subject lands since the issue
raised in the said case merely pertained to the
LBP's legal standing to institute the complaints for
just compensation and not the valuation of the
subject lands.92 The pronouncement in the said
decision on the matter of computation of just
compensation was a mere obiter dictum, an
opinion expressed upon some question of law
that was not necessary in the determination of
the case before it.93 As succinctly pointed out in
the case of LBP v. Suntay,94 "it is a remark made,
or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision
upon a cause by the way, that
is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly
upon the question before him, or upon a point not
necessarily involved in the determination of the
cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or
analogy or argument. It does not embody the
resolution or determination of the court, and is
made without argument, or full consideration of
the point. It lacks the force of an adjudication,
being a mere expression of an opinion with no
binding force for purposes of resjudicata."95
Besides, it bears stressing that the original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation is vested in
the RTC,96 hence, it cannot be unduly restricted
in the exercise of its judicial function.
With respect to the award of twelve percent (12%)
interest on the unpaid just compensation for Land
3 subject of GR. No. 214021, the Court finds
untenable the LBP's contention that the same
was bereft of factual and legal bases, grounded
on its having promptly paid Santos the initial
valuation therefor barely two months after it
approved the DAR's valuation on June 26,
2000.97
Notably, while the LBP released the initial
valuation in the amount of P46,781.58 in favor of
Santos in the year 2000, the said amount is way
below, or only four (4% )98 of the just
compensation finally adjudged by the RTC. To be
considered as just, the compensation must be fair
and equitable, and the landowners must have
received it without any delay.
It is doctrinal that the concept of just
compensation contemplates of just and timely
payment. It embraces not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the
landowner, but also the payment of the land
within a reasonable time from its taking, as
otherwise, compensation cannot be considered
"just," for the owner is made to suffer the
consequence of being immediately deprived of
his land while being made to wait for years before
actually receiving the amount necessary to cope
with his loss.99
In LBP v. Orilla,100 the Court elucidated that
"prompt payment" of just compensation is not
satisfied by the mere deposit with any accessible
bank of the provisional compensation determined
by it or by the DAR, and its subsequent release to
the landowner after compliance with the legal
requirements set by RA 6657, to wit:
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed
by this Court that the true measure is not the
taker's gain but the owner's loss. The word 'just"
is used to modify the meaning of the word
"compensation" to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be given for the property to be
taken shall be real, substantial, full, and
ample.
The concept of just compensation embraces not
only the correct determination of the amount to be
paid to the owners of the land, but also payment
within a reasonable time from its taking. Without
prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner
is made to suffer the consequences of being
immediately deprived of his land while being
made to wait for a decade or more before actually
receiving the amount necessary to cope with his
loss.
Put differently, while prompt payment of just
compensation requires the immediate deposit
and release to the landowner of the
provisional compensation as determined by
the DAR, it does not end there. Verily, it also
encompasses the payment in full of the just
compensation to the landholders as finally
determined by the courts. Thus, it cannot be
said that there is already prompt payment of
just compensation when there is only a partial
payment thereof, as in this case.101 (Emphasis
supplied)
Thus, in expropriation cases, interest is
imposed if there is delay in the payment of
just compensation to the landowner since the
obligation is deemed to be an effective
forbearance on the part of the State. Such
interest shall be pegged at the rate of twelve
percent (12%) per annum on the unpaid balance
of the just compensation, reckoned from the time
of taking,102 or the time when the landowner was
deprived of the use and benefit of his
property103 such as when title is transferred to the
Republic,104 or emancipation patents are issued
by the government, until full payment.105 To
clarify, unlike the six percent (6%) annual
incremental interest allowed under DAR AO No.
13, Series of 1994, DAR AO No. 2, Series of 2004
and DAR AO No. 6, Series of 2008, this twelve
percent (12%) annual interest is not granted on
the computed just compensation; rather, it is a
penalty imposed for damages incurred by the
landowner due to the delay in its payment.106
Accordingly, the award of twelve percent (12%)
annual interest on the unpaid balance of the just
compensation for Land 3 should be
computed from the time of taking and not from
January 1, 2010 as ruled by the RTC and the
CA, until full payment on October 12,
2011.107 However, copies of the emancipation
patents issued to the farmer-beneficiaries have
not been attached to the records of the case.
Hence, the Court is constrained to remand the
case to the RTC of Naga City for receipt of
evidence as to the date of the grant of the
emancipation patents, which shall serve as the
reckoning point for the computation of the
interests due Santos.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The
Decision dated December 4, 2013 and the
Resolution dated August 11, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 110779 and 121813
are hereby AFFIRMED with
the MODIFICATION that the awarded twelve
percent (12%) interest shall be computed from
the date of taking until full payment of the just
compensation on October 12, 2011 for the
property covered by TCT No. 5717 (Land 3). The
records of the case are REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 23 for
further reception of evidence as to the date of the
grant of the emancipation patents in favor of the
farmer-beneficiaries of Land 3, which shall serve
as the reckoning point for the computation of the
said award.
before the cases were assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 32-
57; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 3-22.
2 Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 65-
80; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 29-
44.·Penned by Associate Justice Victoria
Isabel A. Paredes with Associate
Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Eduardo B.
Peralta, Jr. concurring.
3Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 83-
85; rollo (GR. No. 214021), pp. 26-28.
4CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 110779), pp.
45-47. Penned by Presiding Judge
Valentin E. Pura, Jr.

SO ORDERED. 5 Id. at 48-50.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE 6 Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 45-49.

Associate Justice
7 See id. at 30.
WE CONCUR:
8 Id. at 64-66-A.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice 9 Id. at 30.
Chairperson
10Entitled "DECREEING THE
TERESITA J. EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM
LUCAS P.
LEONARDO-DE THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL,
BERSAMIN
CASTRO TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE
Associate Justice
Associate Justice OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL
AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA AND MECHANISM THEREFOR",
Associate Justice (approved on October 21, 1972).

11See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 37;

CERTIFICATION
and rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 30-31.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
12See CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No.
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation 110779), p. 45.
13 See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 37.
14Entitled "DECLARING FULL LAND
OWNERSHIP TO QUALIFIED FARMER
BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27;
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF
REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND
CORN LANDS SUBJECT OF P.D. NO.
27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
MANNER OF PAYMENT BY THE
FARMER BENEFICIARY AND MODE
OF COMPENSATION TO THE
LANDOWNER" (approved on July 17,
1987).
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 51.
16See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 67;
and rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 31.
17
CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 110779), pp.
367-368.
18 Id. at 366 and 369-370.
19See rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 54
and 60.
20CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 110779), pp.
211-221.
21Id. at 249-253, 254-258, and 259-263.
All penned by Provincial Adjudicator
Pedro B. Jamer, Jr.
GSP = Government Support
Price of corn
26 SECTION 2. Henceforth, the valuation
of rice and corn lands covered by P.D.
No. 27 shall be based on the average
gross production determined by the
Barangay Committee on Land
Production in accordance with
Department Memorandum Circular No.
26, series of 1973, and related issuances
and regulations of the Department of
Agrarian Reform. The average gross
production per hectare shall be multiplied
by two and a half (2.5). the product of
which shall be multiplied by Thirty Five
Pesos (P35.00), the government support
price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on
October 21, 1972, or Thirty One Pesos
(P31.00), the government support price
for one cavan of 50 kilos of com on
October 21. 1972, and the amount
arrived at shall be the value of the rice
and com land, as the case may be, for the
purpose of determining its cost to the
farmer and compensation to the
landowner. (Underscoring supplied)
27Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE GRANT OF
INCREMENT OF SIX PERCENT (6%)
YEARLY INTEREST COMPOUNDED
ANNUALLY ON LANDS COVERED BY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 228"
(approved on October 27, 1994).

28 See rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 72.

22 Id. at 252.
29CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 110779), pp.
23 Id. at 257.
264-274.
24See rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 70.
30 Id. at 264-268.
See also CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No.
110779), p. 262.
31 Id. at 270-274.
25 Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 70.
32See the motions to dismiss dated
Where: August 1, 2001 and August 23, 2001 in
Civil Case Nos. 2001-0299 and 2001-
0315; Id. at pp. 277-290 and 291-303,
LV = Land Value
respectively.

AGP = Average Gross 33Id. at 304-311. Penned by Judge

Production of corn in cavan of 50
Ramon A. Cruz.
kilos
34 See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 130. 49CA rollo (CA-G.R. No. 110779), pp.
361-364.
35 The cases were docketed as CA-GR.
CV No. 74919 (for Civil Case No. 2001- 50 Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 80.
0299) and raffled to the CA's Fifth
Division and CA-GR. CV No. 75010 (for 51Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A
Civil Case No. 2001-0315) was raffled to COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
the Third Division; see rollo (G.R. No. REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE
213863), p. 68; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
p. 32. INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING
THE MECHANISM FOR ITS
36See CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER
110779), p. 45. PURPOSES" (approved on June 10,
1988).
37 Id. at 46.
52 Entitled "RULES AND REGULATIONS
38 Id 45-46. ON VALUATION AND LANDOWNERS
COMPENSATION INVOLVING
39 TENANTED RICE AND CORN LANDS
Id. at 45-4 7.
UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
40
(P.D.) NO. 27 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER
See motion for reconsideration dated (E.O.) No. 228" which took effect on July
July 17, 2009; id. at 129-136. 1, 2009.
41 Id. at 48-50. 53 See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 42.
42 Id. at 3-43. 54Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp.35 and
82.
43 Id. at 20.
55Id. at 35 and 83. As gathered from the
44Entitled "RULES AND PROCEDURES records, it appears that the revalued
GOVERNING THE ACQUISITION OF amounts were computed using the
AGRICULTURAL LANDS SUBJECT OF formula, LV = (CNI x 0.90) + (MV x 0.10).
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL AND
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION AND Where:
THOSE COVERED UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 407"
LV = Land Value
(approved on May 12, 2005).

45See CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. CNI = Capitalized Net Income

110779), p. 30.
MV = Market Value per Tax
46 Declaration
See Resolution dated November 27,
2009; id. at 375-377. Penned by
Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario which is the applicable formula if
with Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, no comparative sales data are
Jr. and Magdangal M. de Leon available. (See DAR AO No. 1,
concurring. Series of 2010, Part IV on "Land
Valuation", No. 1)
47 See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 41.
Thus, the LV for Land 3 was
48 computed as follows:
See Deed of Assignment dated
February 13, 2002; CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP
No. 121813), p. 59. LV = (CNI x 0.90)+(MV x 0.10)
 = (P76,500.00 x 0.90) + AND EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) No.
(P91,713.67 x 0.10) [Id. at 83] 228" dated July 28, 2008.

= P68,850.00+P9,171.37 . This further extended the grant

of the six percent (6%)
= P78,021.37 x 14.8065 has. [Id.] incremental annual interest up to
December 31, 2009.
= Pl.155.223.41 [Id.] I
65CA rollo (CA-
56See rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 42; G.R.SPNo.121813),pp.12-43.
See also rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 35.
66 Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), p. 43.
57Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 57-58.
67 See rollo (G.R. No. 214021),' p. 116.
Penned by Judge Valentin E. Pura, Jr.

58 68Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 65-

Id. at 50.
80; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 29-44.
59 Id. at 50-56.
69See Entry of Judgment; rollo (G.R. No.
60 Id. at 46. 213863), p. 138.

70See Decision dated February 18,

61 Id. at 45-49.
2005; CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No.
62
110779), pp. 328-343. Penned by
Under this AO, six percent (6%) Associate Justice Ruben T., Reyes with
compounded yearly interest is granted to Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-
lands covered by PD 27 and EO 228 for Salonga and Fernanda Lampas Peralta
the delay in the payment of just concurring.
compensation, from the time of taking
until November 1994. 71See Decision dated February 28,
63
2007; id. at 344-352. Penned by
Entitled "AMENDMENT TO Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No.13, with Associate Justices Portia Alino-
SERIES OF 1994 ENTITLED "RULES Hormachuelos and Japar B. Dimaampao
AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE concurring.
GRANT OF INCREMENT OF SIX
PERCENT (6%) YEARLY INTEREST 72Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 74-
COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY ON
77; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 38-41.
LANDS COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE (P.O.) NO. 27 AND
73Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 77-
EXECUTIVE ORDER (E.O.) NO. 228"
dated November 4, 2004. This extended 79; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 41-43.
the grant of the six percent (6%)
incremental annual interest up to 74Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 83-
December 2006. 85; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 26-28.

64Entitled "AMENDMENT TO DAR 75See LBP v. Ibarra, G.R. No. 182472,

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 2., S. November 24, 2014.
OF 2004 ON THE GRANT OF
INCREMENT OF SIX PERCENT (6%) 76See LBP v. Heirs of Alsua, G.R. No.
YEARLY INTEREST COMPOUNDED 211351, February 4, 2015.
ANNUALLY ON LANDS COVERED BY
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE (PD) No. 27 77 4 78 Phil. 701 (2004 ).
78 Id. at 708-709. 95 Id. at 913-914.

79Under Executive Order No. 405 issued 96 See Section 57, RA 6657.
on June 14, 1990, the DAR is required to
make use of the determination of the land 97 Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 99.
valuation and compensation by the LBP
as the latter is primarily responsible for 98Initial valuation P
the determination of the land valuation 46,781.58
and compensation.
Final just compensation + 1,
15 5 ,223 .41
80This is essentially the procedure Percentage of initial valuation
outlined in Section 16 of RA 6657. to final just compensation
4.04956994422404 %
81See LBP v. Heir of Vda. De Arieta, 642
Phil. 198, 223 (2010); See also sub- 99LBP v. Department of Agrarian Reform
paragraph (4) of the Statement of Adjudication Board, 624 Phil. 773, 781
Policies ofDAR1AO No. 2, Series of (2010).
2005.
100 578 Phil. 663 (2008).
82 Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 45-47.
101 Id. at 676-677.
83See LBP v. Pagayatan, 659 Phil. 198,
214(2011). 102
See LBP v. Santiago, Jr., G.R, No.
182209, October 3, 2012, 682 SCRA
84 327 Phil. 1047 (1996). 264, 285.

85 Id. at 1053-1054. 103LBP v. Lajom, G.R. Nos. 184982 and

185048, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA
86CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 110779), p. 511, 523; See also LBP v. Heirs of
46. Alsua, G.R. No. 211351, February 4,
2015.
87 Id. at 50.
104LBP v. Heirs of Encinas, G.R, No.
88 Id. at 46. 167735, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 52,
60.
89 Id. at 47.
105 LBP v. Lajom, supra note 103.
90Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 76-
106 Id. at 524.
77; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 40-41.

91 107 Rollo (G.R. No. 214021), p. 116.

LBP v. Pagayatan, supra note 83, at
207-208, citing Lanuza v. CA, 494 Phil.
51, 58 (2005).

92See Rollo (G.R. No. 213863), pp. 74-

75; rollo (G.R. No. 214021), pp. 38-39.

93See LBP v. Suntay, 678 Phil.1879, 913

(2011).

94 See id